Sic[k] of the ‘new terrorism’ debate? A response to our critics

Abstract

Apart from the great debates on the definition of terrorism or its causes, the discussion about whether ‘new terrorism’ can really be considered new or not has become one of the central disagreements in terrorism research. This article will respond to the criticism voiced by some of the proponents of the ‘new terrorism’ idea and reflect on the merits of their arguments. It will emphasis the importance of words and the implication of small predicates such as ‘new’ for the construction of terrorism and our reaction to it.

Keywords:

• new terrorism
• criticism
• words
• debate
• waves
• metaphors

Notes

1. For more detailed critical evaluation of religion and terrorism, see, for example, Gunning (2007) and Zulaika (2009).

2. Ayman al-Zawahiri appointed as al-Qaeda leader. BBC News [online]. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13788594 [Accessed 5 July 2011].

3. Original footnote 106 here reads: ‘Cf. Neumann, Old and New Terrorism, 49–50. Neumann also identifies “the freer movement of people across national borders” as one of the independent variables that explain the emergence of transnational terrorist networks’.

4. For a more detailed and critical engagement with Rapoport and his idea of ‘waves’ of terrorism, see Sedgwick (2007) and Rosenfeld (2010).

5. Whether new counterterrorism is ‘really’ needed or is not is the question here.